Movies like DRIVE aren’t made all that much anymore, but they used to be all the rage. One man, one job, no quitting. Such films defined the role of the anti-hero and pushed the cinematic boundaries of pace, narrative, and violence.

So with DRIVE coming with an air of originality, the question would be if it would do something seldom seen in cinemas anymore, or become a stylish retread of a 70’s adrenaline film.

DRIVE is the story of an unnamed driver (referred to only as “Driver”, played by Ryan Gosling). By day he works both as a mechanic and as a stunt driver for movies. His real money comes from his night job, where he works as a get-a-way driver for hire. His rules are simple: tell him where and when to show up, and he’s there for a five minute window with the engine idling. He doesn’t carry a weapon and he doesn’t wait around, but if you’re looking to flee the scene in a hurry he’s your guy.

At home, his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) catches his eye. She is raising a young son by herself while her husband is in prison. Something about Irene catches his attention, and soon “Driver” finds himself spending time with her and her son…and just when it seems like they’ll cross some sort of romantic line, they find out that Irene’s husband Standard (Oscar Isaac) is about to be released early.

However, being square with the law isn’t the end of Standard’s problems. Turns out he owes money to some very bad men. When “Driver” finds out about this, he offers to help out of concern for Standard, Irene, and their son. It’s right around then that the old saying about good deeds going unpunished proves to be true once again.


The draw of DRIVE is unquestionably Ryan Gosling. This is the fourth film I’ve watched him in this year, and the four performances could not be more varied. he has quickly become an actor that makes me sit up and take notice whenever he walks on-screen, and his stoicism here as “Driver” is no exception. He gives glimmers of his humanity during a tender moment or two with Irene, but his cool demeanour anytime he’s working is intriguing. He’s not trying to intimidate, he’s just trying to keep professionally detached.

Likewise, Carey Mulligan continues her roll of solid performances by playing a woman of quiet grace and maturity. Her crowning moment in this film comes when she witnesses a truly violent act in a confined space. Rather than break out into hysterics, she displays a demeanour of pure shock…like she can’t emote any sort of panic because she can’t believe she has just seen what she has in fact just seen. Topping it all off, she is ushered out of the scene in a direct nod to a classic crime movie, and she does her predecessor proud.

Beyond the acting, another thing DRIVE does well is get the look of the film right. Everything has a gloss to it, adding points to its “cool” factor and making it feel like a more stylish entry into the genre. Perhaps most impressive is Winding Refn’s eye for Los Angeles at night. In scenes worthy of a Michael Mann film, he uses both major boulevards and back alleys as veins and arteries to give the film’s action its lifeblood. There are films that are set in L.A. and there are “L.A. Stories”: DRIVE is the latter.

DRIVE fits perfectly within Winding Refn’s body of work, and would make a swell double-feature with the director’s previous films like BRONSAN or THE PUSHER. However, therein lays the one thing I believe holds the film back from being something truly special. It’s precisely the sort of B-Movie Winding Refn has become known for, and doesn’t challenge the director to say anything new. It’s a schlock film with a budget. I’m not suggesting that Winding Refn has to evolve into something he’s not, but if these are the sorts of films he’s always going to make, then DRIVE could prove to be his peak as a filmmaker.

Winding Refn seems to enjoy painting the movies he makes with some intense violence. Again – there’s nothing wrong with that, but I don’t agree with the way he tries to dress them up with romanticism. If a character has to die a gruesome death, kill them and be done with it. Why anyone would want to fetishize it by playing it in slow-motion is beyond me.

DRIVE is great for what it is. It’s calculating and thrilling pulp, elevated by some pretty pictures and a few great performances. Indeed, it left me wanting more – specifically more weight, and more maturity.

Matineescore: ★ ★ 1/2 out of ★ ★ ★ ★
What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions on DRIVE.

39 Replies to “DRIVE”

  2. If one guy is named Standard, I’m surprised there isn’t a character named “Automatic” or “Clutch”.

  3. Completely agreed. It’s glossy and well-made but more style than substance. But I think that’s what he was going for anyway. When you don’t give your main character a name or a backstory, it’s only going to be pulp.

    1. We agree on this good sir. I guess what we’re both saying is that schlocky genre films are fun and great for what they are, but leave you with nothing more to take away.

  4. i knew so little about this film except that EVERYONE has been saying its great. i start reading your review: “by night he’s a getaway driver…” my god, i did not know that, and then “his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) ” CAREY MULLIGAN IS IN IT!!! I have now stopped reading. I want to watch this knowing nothing.

    1. It was tricky to avoid details of this film going in. If you haven’t already seen the trailer avoid it at ALL COSTS.

      Happily, what you have already deduced from my post are details you learn inside the first five minutes. C’mon back once you’ve seen it.

  5. I loved it – I thought it was a perfect extension of VALHALLA RISING – and the pacing in which Winding Refn unvails the film – with some of those static scenes and the low key synth music – leaving more questions about Goslings character than answering them – I thought it was simply a brilliant piece of modern filmmaking… And Albert Brooks – fantastic!

    1. Interestingly, I agree with pretty much everything you say here…but I still want more for my money. Gosling does rule though – lordy has this ever been his year! I’ve heard mixed things about VALHALLA RISING. I might add that to the watchlist…I might not.

  6. I’m a little sketchy on this one. Has a lot of markers in both directions on the love/hate spectrum for me. Style over substance isn’t always something I go for, and when I do is sporadic at the best of times. So I think I’m going to hold off on this one for a while and give it the DVD go which ought to give me some more control over the mood I’m in when I watch it.

    1. Regardless of my slight dissatisfaction with the film as a whole, I would suggest taking it in on a big screen (though I seldom don’t). If you’re gonna give yourself over to this insanity – give yourself all the way over.

  7. Apparently I drank the Kool-aid on this one. There were a few moments during the film that I cringed at – musical choices and not the violence believe it or not – my girlfriend did not like it as much as I did and had feelings similar to yours.

    1. I might have structured my review a bit badly.

      I wouldn’t say you drank the Kool-Aid just because you liked it, because – to be clear – I did too. I just think it’s flawed and being drummed up for more than what it is.

      Not to start pointing fingers, but I’ve seen people call this film the best thing they’ve seen this year. Anytime I read that after I saw it, I couldn’t help but think “Really?”

      It’s good – I laughed, I cried, it was better than “Cats” – just not great.

      1. I see. I wouldn’t call it the best thing of this year either. In order for me to call it that it would have to have some kind of depth.

        By the way thank you very much for the link. I really appreciate it!

        1. Take a look around amigo – lots of people saying it’s the best thing they’ve seen all year. I’m trying not to let that affect my impression of the film but the dull roar is getting a bit hard to drown out.

          Most welcome for the linkage – hope you enjoy the increased traffic from my seven readers.

  8. I’m thinking about this film more along the lines of A History of Violence. It’s cartoony (graphic novelly, even) and stylized, but to what end? I don’t think Gosling is cool in this. I think he’s terrible, in the best way! He tries to play cool, suave, detached, but by the realism of the violence and his complete proficiency in violence, it’s clear that there is something else going on with this character that makes us question our initial attachment to him. I think it’s more complicated than the “b-movie” categorization gives it credit for (like most good b-movies, I think). It’s A History of Violence meets Taxi Driver with far different consequences. I kind of loved it.

    1. I didn’t think the brutality in history was all that cartoony…if anything, the violence in this reminded me of something like INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, but without the wicked-witty script to back it up.

      Again – I keep repeating this – I did like it…but like a lot of those early Tarantino films that felt more like homage than their own animal, this felt like a bouillabaisse of flicks like BULLIT, VANISHING POINT, COLLATERAL, and (yes) TAXI DRIVER…but without any subtext to give it a voice of its own.

      Lookin’ forward to hearing y’all talk about it on FMD.

  9. This is close to my own feelings about the film. I liked it but I didn’t love it, it felt lacking in something. It was very glossy and pretty and stylized, but didn’t really say much. I was happy to sit back and stare at Ryan Gosling for an hour and a half though. Also Carey Mulligan endears herself more and more to me with every performance.

    1. If you liked Mulligan in this, I’ll be curious to know what you think of her in SHAME.
      And I hear ya on Gosling – I’m pretty sure that I’m now officially down for anything the guy makes.

  10. Gosling is giving JoGo some competition after this one in my book, which should effectively speak to how much I liked this movie.

    I can see where you’re coming from, but I didn’t see the violence as being portrayed in fetish like manner. I got a more “Scorsese-like” approach to it, really quick bouts of incredibly graphic bloodshed, which is a style I think needs to be brought back, and stat!

    1. That’s the thing though mate – this film feels like it’s all style and no substance. It’s as if everybody is falling all over themselves “because it’s so cool”.

      1. I mean, it definitely is “cool”, and so few films are legitimately “cool” these days, but I do think there is some substance here. I thought Gosling’s character had a surprisingly interesting arc. But I will agree that the coolness is what did it for most. Like I said, it’s so rare these days.

  11. Great how you pointed out Gosling (Driver) not being intimidating just professionally detached. Absolutely loved this after the screening and true in the weeks before the release I got all too caught in the hype machine. Not to say it doesn’t deserve it but while not entirely original it gets high points for style and intensity and that’s what I liked best about it.

    It’s not just as you say a retread but a doppleganger of early Mann films. Still love it (and my God, the soundtrack) to death, but I respect you for wanting something weighter.

    Fine job bud, and do check out Valhalla Rising…it’s very static and gruesome but it’s like visual poetry.

  12. Nicely written review Mad. I’m nonetheless surprised that you didn’t like it more given the positive review (but relatively low rating). I just came back from a second viewing of the film and I’m loving it even more 😀

  13. Stumble upon your review regarding Drive, having seen it twice, I still think it’s the best film this year.

    The movie is clearly a fable/fantasy, I think Refn did his darndest to create this world by using the soundtrack, neon lights, long takes. This sort of fits in with the main character Driver who wasn’t given a backstory (like Le Samourai as many people have mentioned), and clearly only exists in this world. In the real world, he would be a psychopath.

    I don’t think the movie’s violence was too gratuitous. It has consequences, I think Filmspotting also pointed this out, think of what happened with Driver and Irene in the end. Also, the camera doesn’t stay with the violence after it’s committed. It would show maybe a second of it, but it quickly cuts away.

    Stylistic exercise like this usually don’t stay with me, but Drive has substance to engage me. This is a beautiful love story that drives the action, (no pun intended) all the long glances, 80ish soundtracks and silence works well here. Sometimes the best love stories are the ones that are unattainable. John Woo’s The Killer keep popping up when I watched Drive the second time. It’s a different story and the pace is definitely different. But the sentimentality is similar.

    Drive’s performances are top-notch, I don’t think anyone disagree with that. Everyone play their role so well, so I won’t say anything more.

    The enjoyment of Drive depends heavily on the viewer’s acceptance to this world, and accept that this is a fable/fantasy. I did and loved it. It is not Heat, which is a procedural + character study (which I love, BTW). Refn didn’t make a character study here and if he did, I would suspect the Driver to be a lot like Travis Bickle.

    1. Hi Peter – Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for checking out my site. Hopefully it won’t be your last visit.

      I heard an interview where Winding-Refn compared DRIVE to Grimm faery tale – with Driver as the knight, Irene as the Princess, etc. It was actually a pretty cool comparison. Like your point about the world this film inhabits not trying to really be real, it helps provide some clarity to the film.

      The violence still rubs me the wrong way since the moments we are forced to endure felt like one or two too many. True, everyone can point to the fallout of what happens in the elevator as a consequence of a violent act…but how does that help Christina Hendricks’ character and what her fate is? (Sidenote – In all the reactions to the film I’ve read/listened to, nobody is mentioning that moment).

      On the whole, my opinion of the film is clicking up a few notches as I reflect on it. I’m seeing a *bit* more substance behind the style – just a bit mind you – but still won’t be talking about it as one of the top dogs come year-end.

      1. I will say this about Christina Hendrick’s character is that I don’t think it should be played by Hendricks since the character isn’t given a lot to do, and having a big name on screen, well you sort of expect something.

        As for her character’s fate, one comment: The moment of violence is short, and the camera doesn’t linger on. It’s not slowing down to admire the consequences like so many torture porns do. It happens, camera sees it, pans out quickly. It didn’t bother me because I was never given a chance to bother me (hope that makes sense).

  14. I definitely had my own problems with this movie, though they weren’t actually the ones you mentioned. I had more issues with the inconsistent silences and the way Refn seemed to bring things into the movie and then drop them like a hot potato (example, the beat up race car that literally did not leave the garage). All in all, I enjoyed it, but I understand what you mean by the “thrilling pulp”. Great review!

  15. Some of my favorite films are schlock, so I don’t take it as a negative in the film. Sure, it’s got some b-movie roots to be sure, but the film we end up with is a lot better than a lot of a-movies I’ve seen recently.

    And I think he only romanticizes the film in order to undercut the film with a heavy dose of irony, making the audience revolted and shocked by a couple of surprisingly brutal moments.

    1. I like schlock too, but let’s call a spade a spade.

      Again, I’m warming on the film a bit more than my first reactions – which were largely positive – but I’m still perplexed at this film being seen as one of this year’s best.

    1. I read that too and can only hope that the story has been misunderstood. If it hasn’t, then the woman filing the suit needs a serious wake-up call.

      Oddly enough, some of the films I loved most this year came as a result of misleading trailers!

Comments are closed.